Guest post by RaP
Monday, July 1, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Significance of Rav Salanter meeting Rav Hirsch?
I found the following description strange on many levels. Rav Salanter had been in Germany since 1857 dealing with kiruv issues and had not met Rav Hirsch nor was he familiar with his writings. In addition despite being involved full time with kiruv he had not apparently not mastered German after 15 years? (Prof. Etkes said he knew enough to read the newspapers.) This account indicated that they didn't really have much to talk about nor did they meet again or work together on a common project. In addition Rav Hirsch was devoting years pursuing the legal right for his congregation to separate from the official government sanctioned Jewish congregation - something that not only his congregation wasn't interested in nor did the leading halachic authority of Germany - Rav Wurtzburger - think it desirable and basically snubbed Rav Hirsch over this matter. I would have assumed that meeting with Rav Hirsch as well as Rav Hildesheimer and the Malbim would be primary goals - working to stop Reform and the Haskala - but it didn't happen. Why not?
[This is from Rabbi Elias' edition of the 19 Letters] In the Israelit, on March 22, 1906, Rabbi Naftali
Hertz Ehrmann published an account of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter's stay in Berlin about thirty years earlier and of his desire
to meet Rabbi S. R. Hirsch. Translation from (The Light, on 14 Nisan 5738):
At about this time, Rav Shimshon (ben R'foel) Hirsch arrived
in Berlin. He often came to Berlin at
the beginning of the 1870's in order to
prepare the way for the" Austrittsgesetz, ,,' which was finally passed in 1876. Three years older than Rav Yisroel,
he was always under great strain and
beset with many different types of work which made great demands on him at all hours of the day
and night throughout his stays in
Berlin. He sought out ministers, ministerial advisers, and influential representatives in every area and,
through personal representation of the case, tried to win over the
authoritative factions in favor of the
law. In the evenings, his correspondence and writing awaited him, and this often kept him occupied until
well into the night. Rav Yisroel had a
great longing to become acquainted with Rav Hirsch and to hear his views on the measures for
consolidation of traditional Jewry in
Russia. He had great respect for the regenerator of German Jewry, and no one else was more deeply convinced of
the desperate need of Russian Jewry for such a personality.
Questions of etiquette-regarding which
of the two was to visit the other first-did not exist for Rav Yisroel. He asked me (as I was taking care of
a few small duties for Rav Hirsch during
his stay) to ask Rav Hirsch when would be the most convenient time to visit him .... When I saw how the time of
this great man was so completely taken,
up, I hardly had the courage to mention Rav
Yisroel's wish, for I knew
that its fulfillment would cost him more precious time ... I therefore ventured to
remark that the matter was not so urgent
and the visit could easily be postponed for a few days. However, Rav Hirsch refused to hear of it, and
asked me to ask Rav Yisroel to honor him
with his visit the very next evening ...
More than 30 year have passed since the memorable evening.
But the overwhelming impression of the
meeting between these two great personalities
has remained with me until this day. Their similarities and their differences; the overflowing wisdom of
their thoughts, and the restrained
modesty of their spoken words. The expression in Rav Hirsch's eyes from which his great, noble soul
seemed to pour forth, and the flashing
sparks which shot out from the gaze of Rav Yisroel and blazed around his great learned brow. All
that and so much more all of it remains in my memory as vividly as if it had
just happened yesterday. How different
were the two great men in speech and bearing, and in various other external
aspects which draw the attention; and yet
how similar and related were they in their thoughts and their spiritual life-in short, in everything which
makes a man a Jew. Never have I sensed the binding
and brotherly strength of the Torah l'tzaref es hab'riyos more deeply than in the moment when the two men reached out their hands to each other. Rav
Yisroel who, even in general
conversation, never let a word leave his lips which had not been carefully considered from all sides, and
who knew in addition how precious Rav
Hirsch's time was - particularly then - came straight to the matter which lay on his heart more than
on anyone else's. He explained the
dangers which he believed threatened the future of Russian Jewry and asked Rav Hirsch for his
views on how best to combat them. Rav
Hirsch, in his modesty, thought that he was not familiar enough with Jewish life in Russia to
be able to express an authoritative
opinion. Rav Yisroel however, he reasoned, must surely have thought about the problem a great deal himself,
and he
therefore asked him to first state his
opinion. Rav Yisroel pointed out that the best means of preserving the younger
generation for Jewry - to win back their
respect - was through literature in the Russian language permeated with the true Jewish spirit. The
exceedingly salutary results which would
ensue from writings of this nature were to him quite indisputable. The tragedy was, however, that
those Russian Jews who were permeated with
the truth of Judaism could not write Russian, and those who had acquired a secular education and
had mastered the Russian language had
broken with traditional Judaism. So that the production of such writings seemed
unimaginable. Rav Hirsch suggest ed
that if this was the case, then perhaps it might be proper to translate into Russian works written in the German
language for this purpose. The
translation, if necessary, could even be done by a non-Jew. This idea met with Rav Yisroel's full approval, and
he asked Rav Hirsch to specify a few
suitable works for this purpose. Rav Hirsch suggested the works of Salomon Plessner. At this point, I
allowed myself to enquire whether the
writings of Rav Hirsch, himself, would not be especially qualified, particularly such a work as The 19 Letters. Rav Hirsch replied that it would naturally please him
greatly if, through a translation of his writings, this great undertaking could
be accomplished. Neither was
fundamentally opposed to a Hebrew translation. I later heard this from their own mouths. But they believed
that the great benefits which they hoped
would result from the propagation of the spirit of these writings could be effected
more easily and more permanently if the remedy was given in the same form as
the disease had been transmitted. On the
way home, Rav Yisroel asked me to procure for him that very evening a copy of The 19 Letters and to read through it with him so that he might be able to form
an opinion for himself. That was,
however, easier said than done. At that time, Rav Yisroel had hardly begun to read German, and so we
read until deep into the night and for
still another few days after that, until we finished the first letter. Another few weeks passed before we
finally completed the book. Rav Yisroel
summed up his opinion of it, "The book must not only be translated
into Russian, but also into loshon ha-kodesh."
Negel Vasser – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
5tjt When we wake up in the morning we wash our hands from a vessel in a specific manner: three times on each hand, switching off each time.This is called “Negel Vasser.” There are two customs as to when the blessing on
Neggel Vasser is recited. The prevalent custom is to recite the bracha
immediately (MB 6:9), but some recite it together with the morning
Brachos in Shacharis.
Generally speaking, we recite Brachos
before we do the actual Mitzvah. Why is it different for Negel Vasser?
The answer is that when our hands are impure, we shouldn’t recite a
bracha! So here, Chazal enacted the bracha afterward.
What is
the reason that we wash our hands in the morning? This is actually a
four way debate between the Rosh, the Rashba, the Orchos Chaim (Rav
Aharon of Narbonne), and the Zohar. The Rosh (Responsa #61) writes that
the sages enacted this obligation because our hands invariably touch
parts of the body during the night that should be covered, and we must
wash our hands before praying.
The Rashba (Responsa 1:191) writes
that we are renewed every morning based upon the Pasuk in Eichah
(3:23). Therefore, the sages enacted that we must wash our hands from a
vessel just as the Kohanim wash their hands from the Kior (a vessel) in
the Bais HaMikdash.
The Orchos Chaim (cited in the Drisha in OC
Siman 4) writes that during the nighttime an impure spirit rests upon
the hands and does not leave until the hands are washed three times. The
Shla (Chulin, Derech Chaim) explains that there are three separate
impure forces. Therefore, three washings are necessary to remove them.
The
Zohar (Parshas VaYaishev 184) states that when the Neshama leaves it
leaves a spirit of Tumah, impurity in the body. When the soul
re-enters, the impurity travels to the limbs. Water can remove the
impurity from the hands. Why the limbs? The Shla explains that the
limbs correspond to the outer extensions of the universe, where the
powers of impurity are strongest.
How does the Shulchan Aruch
rule? He rules that a bracha is only recited when both the Rosh’s
reason and the Rashba’s reasons apply. The other reasons may be reasons
to wash one’s hands, but as far as the sages enactment goes, the Rosh
and the Rashba are the main reasons. [...]
My Guidelines for Reporting Abuse Cases
I was recently asked in a Face Book discussion about the guidelines I use for reporting abuse cases. The issue was whether a particularly horrific case involving allegations of incest, gang rape and torture should be published. I decided not to publish it at present. I was asked why I view this case differently than the Weberman and Kolko cases which also involved allegations but which I have extensive reporting? I thought it might be useful to publish here my response to the question.
I
don't automatically put a news item on my blog just because it involves
accusations of abuse - it involves a judgment as to the costs vs
benefits. In the case of Kolko and Weberman - I had additional reports
from those I consider reliable that the charges were valid and more
important that significant pressure was being applied to have the
charges dropped. Therefore there was a major need to counterbalance the
community pressure in these cases. A case that is widely covered in the
secular press is generally also reported to avoid the impression of
cover up. A situation where there are multiple victims is also reported
in order to encourage reporting to the police. In situations where the
perpetrator has escaped - I generally report it so hopefully he will get
caught. Cases that illustrate that the abuser is often a respected or
beloved individual is also reported in order to break down the
stereotype that a crazy stranger is the abuser. In the present case -
there was a single accuser, no indication that there was any evidence or
that she was viewed as trustworthy. More important the details reported
were especially horrific. I could not find other news sources that were
reporting it. I could not think of an obvious benefit to publishing
this anonymous case and the negative consequences of publicizing it are
obvious. I often - though not always - publicize convictions so that
people understand that abuse is not a rare event. There is also the
issue of balance - I don't want to simply report all the negative items
about our community - people stop reading the items or assume that is all
that is going on in the world. in fact I will also publicize related
articles from outside our community if it helps provide a context for
abuse - such as the Penn State scandal or the Catholic Church
Beth Alexander fights an insensitive Austrian justice system to regain her twin boys
Vienna Review by Nina Cranen and Franziska Zoidl
Law without Justice
As in most countries in the
West, Austrian family law is meant to serve the best interests of the
children. But what if Justitia errs? [....]
Family law has a long tradition in Europe, either as Catholic
countries or as Protestant.” However, that should not have mattered
here, as both parents are observant Jews, a tradition in which mothers
are held in very high regard. “Respect for motherhood is deeply rooted
in Jewish culture,” confirmed the Viennese rabbi. Jewish identity itself
is, in fact, matrilineal, i.e., being passed on through the mother. A
child born of a Jewish father and Christian mother, for example, is not
considered a Jew.
However, for Judge emeritus Lilian Hofmeister, Alexander’s case comes
as no surprise in the Austrian legal system: “This is particularly true
in custody wars over sons,” Judge Hofmeister said. “There seems to be a
new ‘rule of thumb’, which states: ‘Sons belong to their fathers’,” she
said. “In the course of my pro bono work, I have come across cases that
I wouldn’t have thought possible from my understanding of the law,” she
added. While she was not familiar with all the details of this case,
she said that especially with parents raising their children
religiously, courts often prefer the fathers to the mothers. “I often
get the impression that fathers use women as baby machines,” Dr.
Hofmeister said, “As soon as the baby is born, they want to get rid of
the mother(…), with foreigners, it is even easier.” As a social critic
and feminist, she sees the situation in Austria as “a ‘war against women
as mothers’, something not yet being examined by the courts.”
As the twins were born in Austria, Alexander’s case is governed by
Austrian law: After a 1.5-year custody battle, Judge Susanne Göttlicher
granted full and immediate custody to her husband, basing her decision
on one psychological report. In the report, a court-appointed
psychologist deemed her unfit to parenting: “The mother has limited
parenting abilities (…) she inadequately interacts and bonds with her
children.” For Alexander, the report has been fabricated – a procedure
that has just caused a scandal in Salzburg, where a courtappointed
psychologist is believed to have written 13 reports for courts
predominantly in custody wars, using pre-fabricated textual elements and
having manipulated the psychological tests.
To prove the report wrong, Alexander had herself re-assessed
privately, leading to a second court-commissioned evaluation, by Dr.
Werner Leixnering. Both reports contradicted the initial report and
stated that she was perfectly sane and a good mother. To date, Judge
Göttlicher has declined to accept these reports in evidence. Claiming
bias, Alexander filed for a replacement of the judge in January, which
has put the case on hold for nearly six months. [...]
However, just before press time, a decision was handed denying
Alexander’s request for a change of venue, stating that “a transfer of
jurisdiction to the Bezirksgericht Josefstadt is not in the interest of
the children at the moment.” But with every day that passes, the legal
argument grows that the children are now “used to their father”, as the
psychiatrist Wörgötter knows from her 15-year experience as a
court-appointed expert. [...]
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Modeh Ani – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
5tjt [...] The Mishna Brurah quotes it and writes, “When we arise in the morning we say, ‘Modeh Ani lefanecha, melech chai v’kayam, shehechezarta bi nishmasi b’chemla, rabah emunasecha.’
This means, ‘Before You, I thank you, O’ living and everlasting King,
that You have returned my soul to me in mercy.. How great is your
faithfulness!’
Why do we say this? The reason is that our bodies are not just
hydro-carbon based cells, proteins, water and minerals. We are also
imbued with a Neshama, a soul, – called in Sefer Iyov a “Chailek Elokah
Mimaal. – A Divine portion from Above.” When we sleep at night, our
Neshamos leave our physical bodies and arise to Heaven. Hashem in His Chemla
– kindness, returns our Neshama to us when we wake up in the morning.
The Modeh Ani is a way of expressing gratitude which makes us into
better people, but it is also more than this. There is an element of
yearning for Geulah in it too.
The last words, “Great is your faithfulness is based upon a verse in
Aicha (3:23), “They are new every morning, great is Your faithfulness.”
The Psikta Zutrasa explains that since each and every morning You renew
our souls, we know that in the future You will redeem us as well.
The words “that You have returned my soul to me” come from the
Avudraham, a Spanish Rishon, in his Hilchos Krias Shma. Yet, he did not
advocate this formula as something to recite each morning upon
awakening. It seems that the author of the Seder HaYom combined these
elements together in conceiving of the Modeh Ani. [...]
Friday, June 28, 2013
5TJT Op-Ed on Supreme Court Ruling Repealing Doma
Five Towns Jewish Times We are deeply saddened by the trajectory of this week’s Supreme Court ruling concerning the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Founders of this great nation embraced the idea of building a moral and virtuous society in this country in a manner that would enable all peoples to be able to fulfill both their inalienable rights as well as their inalienable duties.
These inalienable rights and duties are part of what can be called Natural Law. From Moses to Cicero, to Washington, Jefferson, andFranklin, Natural Law has always defined the distinction between that which is just and that which is unjust, between right and wrong. The idea of “Justice at Nuremberg” was characterized by Natural Law, since according to Nazi German law – the murder of Jews, gypsies, and certain other groups was entirely legal. No society or government should be able to legislate laws or rules that undermine these Natural Laws. Just as a government is proscribed from legalizing murder and theft, so too may it not undermine other Natural Laws.
Marriage has been defined by the very fabrics of history, universal cultural norms, and Natural Law as being between man and woman. Marriage combines in a union of life, love, and fidelity two people, capable of fathering and mothering offspring. It is more than mere kinship or friendship, it is a social and legal bond designed by Natural Law to procreate and continue the existence of mankind. Undermining an institution that has been designed by history and Natural Law to vouchsafe the future of mankind can be compared to unleashing chemical and nuclear hazards that can also undermine mankind’s future. Same gender marriages undermine Natural Law.
Furthermore, once we begin to redefine the basic integrity of the family structure in this nation, state, or city, we begin to fall down a slippery slope. Such a move will give rise to a movement to legalize the right to have multiple wives. It will give legitimacy to those who wish to allow marriages to one’s sister, daughter, son, or to two sisters simultaneously. It will even give legitimacy to those who wish to enter the bonds of matrimony with favorite pets and animals.
Modern social science and scientific inquiry has demonstrated the need of both a mother and a father to help foster the normal psycho-social development of children. While there are times when this is not possible, government should make every effort to improve the ideal environment in which children should be raised. Redefining marriage will lead to a disaster similar to that which Romania experienced in its orphan crisis in the late sixties and early seventies. The Romanian orphan crisis led to a situation where thousands of children were raised outside the structure of families as envisioned by Natural Law. The results were catastrophic and dysfunctional behaviors. There will always be exceptions, but it is clearly in the state’s interest to ensure that future children be given the best chances of success possible. Redefining marriages against the state interest in order to allow some members of society to co-opt a term is wrong. [...]
Marriage has been defined by the very fabrics of history, universal cultural norms, and Natural Law as being between man and woman. Marriage combines in a union of life, love, and fidelity two people, capable of fathering and mothering offspring. It is more than mere kinship or friendship, it is a social and legal bond designed by Natural Law to procreate and continue the existence of mankind. Undermining an institution that has been designed by history and Natural Law to vouchsafe the future of mankind can be compared to unleashing chemical and nuclear hazards that can also undermine mankind’s future. Same gender marriages undermine Natural Law.
Furthermore, once we begin to redefine the basic integrity of the family structure in this nation, state, or city, we begin to fall down a slippery slope. Such a move will give rise to a movement to legalize the right to have multiple wives. It will give legitimacy to those who wish to allow marriages to one’s sister, daughter, son, or to two sisters simultaneously. It will even give legitimacy to those who wish to enter the bonds of matrimony with favorite pets and animals.
Modern social science and scientific inquiry has demonstrated the need of both a mother and a father to help foster the normal psycho-social development of children. While there are times when this is not possible, government should make every effort to improve the ideal environment in which children should be raised. Redefining marriage will lead to a disaster similar to that which Romania experienced in its orphan crisis in the late sixties and early seventies. The Romanian orphan crisis led to a situation where thousands of children were raised outside the structure of families as envisioned by Natural Law. The results were catastrophic and dysfunctional behaviors. There will always be exceptions, but it is clearly in the state’s interest to ensure that future children be given the best chances of success possible. Redefining marriages against the state interest in order to allow some members of society to co-opt a term is wrong. [...]
Hirsch: Daas Torah & Agudas Israel
Prof Alan Mittleman ( The Politics of Torah- History of Agudas Israel page 85): In Hirsch's view, the constitutional centrality of Torah implies a republican political philosophy. The stress on lay participation in Torah study means that no religious professionalism - the clergy model of Christianity which he blames the Reform Jews for importing into Judaism—is acceptable." The decisions of the rabbi and the elected officers are accepted as authoritative only when the people are imbued with Torah. If the people are not steeped in Torah, the officers elected by them will lack discernment and the rabbi's decisions will bescorned. Hirsch interprets the rabbinic maxim, "raise up many students" (Avot 1:1) as a rule for rabbis: make yourselves superfluous, when all are full of Torah, your leadership will be unnecessary."
A number of strands come together here. What Hirsch is proposing is a complete sublimation of the political dimensions of communal life in a system of sacred administration. The sovereignty of the Torah, the total identification of any authoritative public decision with the dictates of the Torah, subsume the sphere of political action into the routine of administration. Hirsch seems to envision, like other nineteenth century thinkers ,the replacement of politics by rational administration. Hirsch’s is a liberal utopianism, albeit rooted in an incipient tendency of the Jewish political tradition, in full flower. The social reality of the Jews can be ordered according to the sacred ideas of the text as it has been rationally explicated by the sages and their followers. The Religionsgesellschaft is to be the embodiment and the model for this subordination of the uncertain world of politics to the certainties of the sacred canopy.
It is interesting to note that Hirsch minimizes the role of rabbinic authority. His view points in the opposite direction from the Eastern European Orthodox elevation of “ daat Torah,” the application of charismatic rabbinic authority to contemporary political questions." Hirsch does not present the rabbi as a kind of oracle, but rather as representative of the community by expressing those truths of which everyone is (or should be) aware because they underlie the community's consensus. As in the late medieval kehillah, the rabbi's authority is strictly derivative. It depends on the will of the community board, on the one hand, and his demonstrable competence in legal matters, on the other. Appeals to a supra-rational charism are out of order.
Hirsch employs what we have termed an empirical or historical model of Jewish community. Drawing perhaps from the social contract tradition of Rousseau, he understand Israel and its public institutions to be a product of decision and choice. The people band together and form authoritative institutions in order to better fulfill the Torah (which they freely accepted) than they could have on their own. The Torah is phenomenologically primary. The community is derivative and instrumental. Yet once composed by covenant or contract, the community has the right to compel its members to continue to acknowledge the basic norm of their collective enterprise. The tradition, according to Hirsch, values mutual compulsion for the public good." Rousseau's tendency toward maximal consensus and his thick view of the common good, expressed in his notion of the volonte generale come to mind here."
Hamodia vs RCA regarding Satmar Rally against Draft
Hamodia - The Hypocrisy of the RCA - The most disturbing part of the RCA statement is that it says that the
rally, which was called for and planned under the direction of the Gedolim,
including both Satmar Rebbes, was “an insult to the memory of the
Satmar Rav … For all his well-known opposition to a secular state, he
always put the protection of Jewish lives first. It is unthinkable that …
he would have countenanced aiding and abetting our enemies.” (It is
important to point out that the opposition of other Gedolim to the rally was not for the reasons the RCA condemned it. It was a question of how we, as frum Jews, are supposed to work to get rid of this gezeirah,
and whether public protest is an effective method.) It would seem that
the RCA president is guilty of the very thing the Chasam Sofer was
worried about, and is ascribing his own opinion to the Satmar Rav, zt”l.
Hamodia - The RCA responds Review the pictures of the rally, especially the signs speaking of a war
on religion, and the lack of freedom of religion in Israel. Can you
understand what a victory this is to millions and millions of
deep-seated haters of Jews who wish to counter the support for Israel
that she asks for as the Middle East’s only democracy? Satmar knows that
its sons will never be drafted, and they don’t take money from the
“illegal Zionist entity.” What were they protesting, other than the
existence of the State itself? We cannot understand — and will not
accept — acting in concert with them. We believe that the Gedolei Torah
who said to stay away from the rally did not just differ with the
organizers about which methods will be effective in countering the
proposed measures. It is our understanding that some or all of them
understood the terrible effect this could have, consciously or
otherwise, on non-Jewish Americans whose favorable image of Israel is
under constant attack. Satmar wanted to co-opt the anger and frustration
of the Torah community over the Lapid proposals for its own cynical
agenda. They wanted to maximize the impact of anti-Israel feeling; our
job was to minimize it. Hence, we asserted that those who attended the
rally are a small but vocal minority that should not take away from the
image Americans have for strong support of Israel. If Americans sense
that Jews are not supportive of their own state, they ask themselves why
they should be supportive. If any members of Congress were negatively
impressed by the rally, organizers will have Jewish blood, G-d forbid,
on their hands.
We had one purpose, and only one purpose in our statement: to counter the image of Israel that the rally placed before the American public. We did not comment on the Lapid measures. One reason is that our members are split on how to react to them. We have some members who have been working hard to counter these measures, some of them taking their concerns straight to the Israeli government. We also, however, have members who refuse to label demands for chareidi participation in all parts of the life of the nation and insistence upon the teaching of basic educational skills in schools as a “gezeiras shmad.” Because different points of view are represented among our membership, we sometimes have to stay away from certain issues — just as Agudah does to maintain its fragile alliance between Litvishe and chassidishe elements.
We had one purpose, and only one purpose in our statement: to counter the image of Israel that the rally placed before the American public. We did not comment on the Lapid measures. One reason is that our members are split on how to react to them. We have some members who have been working hard to counter these measures, some of them taking their concerns straight to the Israeli government. We also, however, have members who refuse to label demands for chareidi participation in all parts of the life of the nation and insistence upon the teaching of basic educational skills in schools as a “gezeiras shmad.” Because different points of view are represented among our membership, we sometimes have to stay away from certain issues — just as Agudah does to maintain its fragile alliance between Litvishe and chassidishe elements.
Hamodia - Lets-state-the-true-facts In reality, the rally that the RCA condemned was endorsed and attended by leading kehillos
whose viewpoints strongly differ from the Satmar approach, including
Sanz-Klausenberg, Belz and Boyan. The Rebbes of Skulen, Vizhnitz, and
Rachmastrivka urged their followers to attend. Among those who
participated were Roshei Yeshivah and Rabbanim such as, shlita,
Harav Aaron Schechter, Harav Elya Ber Wachtfogel, Harav Noach Aizik
Oelbaum, Harav Yaakov Horowitz, Harav Osher Kalmanowitz, Harav Simcha
Bunim Paler, Harav Moshe Meiselman and others. Anyone who recognizes
these names will be able to see that the protest was reflective of the
broader Torah world. Indeed, both Satmar Rebbes were involved in the
planning, and attended — but this wasn’t a rally against the legitimacy
of the State of Israel. It was a rally in defense of Torah Judaism.
=========================
The JCRC, which has particularly close ties to the leadership of Satmar in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, defended the group’s right to protest, but objected to their language. “Sunday’s Foley Square protest against an announced Israeli policy was an expression of free speech,” said Michael Miller, executive vice president and CEO of the JCRC, in a statement issued in response to a Forward inquiry. “However, some of the speakers attempted to outrageously demonize the IDF and the government of Israel. We consider such rhetoric offensive and we categorically condemn it.”[...]
Posters advertising the event, however, suggested a broader
anti-Israel message. “The evil rulers in the Holy Land want to incite
and seduce young men and teenagers to acquiesce to idol worship and to
participate in the impure army,” read Yiddish and Hebrew posters, copies
of which were obtained and translated by the Forward.
=========================
Forward update “Today’s rally is a declaration of war against the enemies of God and
the enemies of religion,” said the Monsey, N.Y.-based Rabbi Yaakov
Weiss, who was the protest’s opening and closing speaker. “We hope the
evil Zionists will not be successful in destroying our holy Torah
studies.”
Speakers used the Yiddish word reshoim, or evil people, to
describe Israeli politicians specifically and Zionists generally. And
Rabbi Nachman Stauber, who leads a Satmar yeshiva in Queens, made a
comparison in his address between Zionists and Amalek, the biblical
Jews’ greatest enemy.[...]
The JCRC, which has particularly close ties to the leadership of Satmar in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, defended the group’s right to protest, but objected to their language. “Sunday’s Foley Square protest against an announced Israeli policy was an expression of free speech,” said Michael Miller, executive vice president and CEO of the JCRC, in a statement issued in response to a Forward inquiry. “However, some of the speakers attempted to outrageously demonize the IDF and the government of Israel. We consider such rhetoric offensive and we categorically condemn it.”[...]
Gershon Barkany pleads guilty to $62 million fraud
F.B.I. Earlier today, Gershon Barkany pleaded guilty at the federal
courthouse in Central Islip, New York, to wire fraud. The proceeding
took place before United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. When
sentenced, Barkany faces up to 20 years in prison. As part of his plea
agreement with the government, Barkany agreed to a $62 million money
judgment payable to the United States.
The guilty plea was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and George Venizelos,
Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York
Field Office.
According to court filings and facts presented during the plea
proceeding, between December 2009 and March 2013, Barkany induced seven
investors to give him approximately $62 million by promising to use
their money in “risk-free” deals to purchase and then immediately
re-sell at a profit commercial real estate properties located in New
York City and New Jersey. However, no such deals existed and the
investors lost their entire investments.
In one instance, Barkany approached an investor he knew from the
community and who placed his trust in the defendant. Barkany preyed on
that trust to convince the investor to invest $46.5 million that was
supposed to be used as a down payment to purchase an office building in
Manhattan, a hotel in Atlantic City, and properties in the Bronx and
Queens. Barkany explained that he would find a buyer for those
properties who would pay a higher price before the actual closing,
resulting in a profit for Barkany and the investor. Barkany assured the
investor that the real estate deals were risk free because if Barkany
was unable to find a buyer before the closing, the owner of the
properties would refund their money. In fact, those real estate deals
did not exist and the investment was not refunded. [...]
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Yaakov Weingarten alleged to have stolen large sums of money from charity donations
Courthouse News Service [See also NY Times ] A Brooklyn man and his cronies swiped "hundreds of thousands - if not millions" of dollars in donations intended for Israeli charities, New York's attorney general claims in court.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Yaakov Weingarten, his wife Rivka Weingarten, and two of Weingarten's principal employees, David Yifat and Simon Weiss, in Kings County Supreme Court. Their last known addresses were in Brooklyn, except for Weiss, who lived in Queens, according to the lengthy complaint.
Also sued are at least 19 entities Weingarten has run for at least the past five years - some of them nonprofits, some corporations organized under the Religious Corporations Law - to prey on a "vulnerable public's charitable instincts, and in particular the charitable impulses that many persons of the Jewish faith have for Israel," New York says in the complaint.
Weingarten and his employees "use deceptive and highly aggressive tactics to raise millions of dollars from donors," the lawsuit states, "ostensibly for Israeli charitable causes such as Emergency Medical Services programs and programs for terror attack survivors, cancer victims, the sick and the poor. [...]
Also named as defendants are the alleged charities Hatzalah Rescue of Israel Inc.; Shearim Inc., aka Shearin; Bnei Torah Inc.; Chesed L'Yisrael V'Chasdei Yosef Inc.; Yad L'Shabbat Inc.; Hazalah Shomron Inc.; Pulse Foundation Inc. aka Pulse; The Israel Leukemia and Cancer Society; Agudath Chesed Bikur Cholim Israel Inc.; Kupat Reb Meir Baal Haness Bnei Torah Eretz Yisrael Inc.; Congregation Yad L'Shabbat Inc.; Shearim Hayad L'Torah Center for Hatzalah L'Shabbat and Chesed L'Yisrael Inc.; Israel Emergency Center; Magen Israel; Hayad victim Assistance Fund; Lmaan Hatorah; Our Children; Zaka Israel, aka Zaka; Yaldei Simcha Yisrael; and Yad Yisrael
Epigenetics - a bump in the road for Darwinian Evolution
Click this link of Dr. Eva Jablonka
Now this kind of thing is resisted because it is felt that this is going
against the prevailing view of evolution, where natural selection is
the only factor that is shaping adaptation. If you introduce epigenetic
inheritance, and the inducible aspects of epigenetic inheritance into
evolutionary theory, it looks like Lamarckian inheritance – it looks
like you have the inheritance of a quiet epigenetic variation, which are
or can be sometimes a specific response to the environment.
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
New York Times Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated the Supreme Court rulings on
Wednesday as landmark decisions that brought the nation closer to full
equality. Opponents said the court had badly overreached in striking
down the Defense of Marriage Act, and they vowed to press on against
same-sex marriage in the courts and through a constitutional ban.
“This doesn’t end it,” said Representative Tim Huelskamp, Republican of
Kansas. “If anything, it’s been ignited and continues to be discussed.”
He said the court action was an attempt to “short-circuit the process
and to undo a decision, a strong bipartisan decision, signed by
President Bill Clinton and supported by then-Senator Joe Biden; for this
court to overrule it, I think folks are tired of judges dictating.”
Backers of same-sex marriage in Washington and around the nation
embraced the rulings and welcomed what they said was the demise of a
biased federal law that turned gay Americans into second-class citizens.[....]
But he insisted that same-sex marriage opponents had scored a victory in
the case involving California’s ban, Proposition 8. Rather than embrace
a broad constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as the lead lawyers
Theodore B. Olson and David Boies had urged, the justices issued a
ruling that ensured a return to same-sex marriage only in California.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)